. juerything changed after the 1967 war when israel bec thenewreligionofamerican jews. after its lightning ctory, washington upgraded israel's status to a strategic american asset. jewish support for israel no ngerthreatened to -- [inaudible] dual loyalty. on the contrary, it now connoted super loyalty as american jews defended on the front lines american interests against the communist third world arab hordes. the jewish state's martial prowess became a source of pride for jews for whom at that time the primary associatn of the nazi holocaust -- to the extent that it trillionerred any association -- triggered any association, was of j well,ews g like sheep to slaughter. the imageisra projected of itself alsoesonated with the st liberalism of american -- [inaudible] like the pioneers conquering the american wilderness, israel had made the desert bloom, was the only democracy in the middle east. it was t light unto the nations. it was home to the microutopia of the -- [inaudible] in the past three years -- excuse me, in the past three decades, however, the uplifting image of israel has with

, they belongtoreligionsandit will guarantee the security needs and interest of if state of israel and the palestinians. but this is a dramatic change from what barack was doing and it certainly is different from any other idea that came up through the years so i can say that barak under the influence of president clinton did a great deal but the in the end they messed it up primarily because of the reluctance of yasser arafat to make any agreement. i never believed arafat will make any agreement because he was a terrorist. there is a big difference between him and abbas. mahmoud abbas, while he was with yasser arafat said officially and publicly and officially that he was against terror when arafat was conducting terror against the state of israel. so i think abbas was the best possible partner for a peace agreement. he and p.m. fayyad were doing many dramatic changes in the way that the administration of the palestinians is handled in the west bank which are very positive much beyond what most people anticipated that they could do. so they have to get credit and i think they are

religionyoumake of the situation in egypt and the dangers it could turn into an islamist state? >> the bottom line in egypt is it's bad for the egyptian in their political future. probably not as bad for the long-term interests of the united states. anytime a leader like morsi puts himself above the judiciary, that's not a good sign to democracy. anytime you put that language in there, it's not good for their democracy. it's troubling not only for egypt but for the long-term events in syria where things are more polarised because of the violence there and the possibility of an islamist state there. but the more encouraging news is the brotherhood has shown they can behave a little more. >> the brotherhood of which morsi was a member of. >> and when he first came in they called to ban alcohol but they didn't because of tourist dollars. and to segregate beaches and they didn't do it bus they were concerned about the economic realities. they need western aid. and the the gaza conflict. they behaved responsibly and tried to bring things to a conclusion. there is evidence that while